Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  February 3, 2012 6:00pm-7:00pm EST

6:00 pm
captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: the job market in the united states surged last month as the unemployment rate dropped to its lowest levels in three years. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. on the newshour tonight, we get the latest on the job growth, and assess what the good news means for a longer-term recovery. >> woodruff: then, we preview tomorrow's republican presidential caucuses in nevada with jon ralston of the "las vegas sun." i think he has to be considered the solid favorite here.
6:01 pm
he has really worked nevada. so i think it's going to pay off for him on saturday. >> brown: ray suarez gets two views on whether israel is ready to bomb iran, and how the u.s. is responding to that possibility. >> woodruff: hari sreenivasan updates the story about the susan g. komen foundation after the breast cancer charity dropped its plans to eliminate grants to planned parenthood. >> brown: plus, mark shields and david brooks analyze the week's news. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: bnsf railway. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for
6:02 pm
public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: payrolls were up and unemployment was down in the january jobs report. the president hailed the news today, while republicans insisted it could've been better still. >> the economy is growing stronger. the recovery is speeding up. and we've got to do everything in our power to keep it going. >> brown: president obama wasted no time this morning at a fire station in arlington, virginia, touting the best job creation numbers in nine months. in fact, the labor department report exceeded economists' hopes with 243,000 jobs added in january, about 90,000 more than expected. the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%, the lowest in three years.
6:03 pm
the rate has been down for five months in a row. and there were other positives: 50,000 new jobs in manufacturing and 21,000 in construction. but in nevada, republicans campaigning for the president's job said the increases could have been seen a long time ago. >> the policies of this administration have not been helpful. they have, in fact, been harmful. they have slowed down the recovery, made it more difficult. >> obama raises taxes, increases regulation, is anti-american energy, and engages in class warfare. he's sort of the anti-jobs presidency. >> brown: republicans in congress pointed to nearly 13 million people still out of work and nearly 24 million considered under-employed. but at his fire station event, mr. obama warned against repeating mistakes of the past when republicans ran the government. >> we can't go back to the policies that led to the recession, and we can't let washington stand in the way of our recovery.
6:04 pm
so i want to send a clear message to congress-- do not slow down the recovery that we're on. don't muck it up. keep it moving in the right direction. ( applause ) >> brown: the president also outlined a program to hire veterans for conservation work on public lands. but he cautioned that employment figures may fluctuate. the congressional budget office issued a similar warning this week. it projected that unemployment could return to near 9% later this year. we'll get to the politics of the jobs situation later. first, we look at the numbers themselves. joel prakken is co-founder and senior managing director of macroeconomic advisers, an economic analysis firm in st. louis. harry holzer, a former chief economist for the labor department, now teaches at georgetown university. harry holzer, i'd start with you a i nice sur pris for a change what are the key positives you see. >> the payroll gross numbers of over 240,000 was really
6:05 pm
much larger than most of us expected it to be. we had a couple of good months already, last couple of months came in at about 150 and then about 200. we expected possibly some sliding back as has often happened in this recovery. the fact that we came in at 240 growth across most sectors of the economy, the dip in unemployment, all of that was positive news sglz. >> brown: you said most sectors, fill that in a little bit. where did you see things that looked particularly good. >> you saw it in manufacturing. also in construction which we haven't seen much of any recovery so far. you saw it at the high end in professional services. but you also saw it at the low end in leisure and hospitality. health care which of course has been strong throughout, so really spread quite nicely across most parts of the economy. >> brown: joel prakken, i want to ask you about some of the reservations. but first, stay on the good news here. what would you add to that?
6:06 pm
what jumped out 59 you? >> well, better than expected and in this economy we liked the upside surprise. i agreed with the previous comments and as your viewers almost certainly know, this report today actually has two surveys, unemployment. the establishment employment, the numbers for which you just reported but it also polls households to see what their employment statistics are. and that separate survey of employment actually grew in excess of 300,000 for the month. so it was corroborating evidence in the companion survey that employment is on the uptick. >> brown: now saying with you, joel prakken, this has all been so up and down. give us the continuing concerns here. tart that out. what reservations do you want to throw out there when we look at what we see today? >> first thing to remember is that employment is generally considered to be a lagging indicator of the economy. so the uptick we are seeing here could just be a reflection of the strengthening in gdp growth that occurred in the last part of 2011. in the first half of 2012, there are some legitimate concerns about how fast the recovery will proceed. first we've got the constant drag from housing.
6:07 pm
we build too many house, we have to work off that physical inventory. we have a lot of houses that could go into foreclosure gumming up the works and the ongoing constipation in the mortgage finance market. fiscal policy is a contractionary mode. the obama stimulus is winding down. the spending caps were passed as part of the budget control act of 2011 are starting to bite and state and local governments face ongoing pressures that are forcing them to raise taxes and trim. in addition, there are uncertainties emanating out of the debt crisis in europe. if a quote lehman event unquote happens in europe during 2012 it could send financial shockwaves around the globe without regard to economic borders. and all of these risks and uncertain occur at a time when the federal reserve have already pushed interest rates very low is not very well poised to try to offset any negative surprises. >> brown: harry holzer, pick up on where we started. how do you view the unemployment number. a lagging indicator, as a helpful indicator for how strong the economy really
6:08 pm
is. >> it is a lagging indicator. it does usually lag by at least a few months. what is interesting is that at the end of the last year we had gdp growth, economic growth of a little under 3%. that's a good number, relative to what it's been. it's not a spec takhar number. and we're not even sure that that going to survive going into the future. some of that was just businesses restocking their inventories. so there was concern about whether that kind of production will continue. and yet it does seem to be enough to have lead to some job growth over the last several months. on the plus side, population growth has slowed. product toift growth has slowed. so even a modest amount of economic growth does seem to be translating into some job growth. at least for now. and again whether or not it continues is anybody's guess. >> brown: and joel prakken, of course the president himself warned that the numbers may bounce around. that's what you are suggesting is that we may
6:09 pm
well see things go down for a few more months before perhaps they go, continue-- i'm sorry, go up again. the unemployment number go up a few months before it continues down. >> as pleased as i am with today's numbers's far too early to know whether this is an inflection point or some kind of breakout report on the employment side. there are enough economic uncertainties facing us in 2012 that it is simply premature to do hand stands over today's number. as encouraging as it, in fact, was. >> and bring in the fed, joel prakken, the fed saying this week as it said the week before that they're just going to keep the interest rates very, very low through 2014, suggesting continuing real fears about the economy, right? >> that's correct. the federal reserve is interested in promoting a healthy recovery. it has said now that interest rates will be maintained at a low level for the next several year, extraordinarily low levels and that is a stimulus to the economy. whether it is enough of a stimulus in combination with
6:10 pm
the other risks and uncertainties facing us to promote very strong job growth in the coming months is anybody's guess. but let's put this in some perspective, we're still 5 million or so jobs below the previous peak. and even further below the level of jobs that would be necessary to get us back to a full employment rate of say 5% if the participation rate was as high as it was 3 or 4 years ago. one of the things that harry noted that is very interesting here. the unemployment rate is falling with very slow economic growth. >> brown: expand on that, harry. what does that mean? what does that tell us? >> it tells us that at least for now, there used to be a rule of thumb that said you need about at least 3% economic growth to lower the unemployment rate because you need about 1 percent to absorb extra population growth. and you need about two percent to absorb higher productivity growth. in the last year productivity growth has slowed down, over the long term that's not great. but over the short term it helps you. population growth on the
6:11 pm
immigration side especially has slowed down. so even a smaller amount of gdp growth is translating into some drop in unemployment. that is a good thing. also part of the unemployment drop has always been just some people who have stopped looking for work. that's not such a good thing. >> brown: this is a long-term problem. >> that's right. if they come back in in the next six to 12 months you can could see the unemployment rate tick back up even if jobs are being created. >> brown: but we've had so many months and even years of bad news, give us a little good news since it is a good news day just to end this. if for people that have suffered for a long time, does this suggest some hope? >> this suggests hope but if you look at some specific groups, the unemployment rate among men has dropped pretty significantly last two or three months. unemployment rate for african-americans is down significantly. we hope that lasts. but these are some the groups that got hit really hard. so we now have four or five
6:12 pm
straight months of improvement in the job numbers. i don't know if that's a trend or not. it is too early to celebrate but it's nice see that trend. >> brown: we will all watch, harry holzer and joel prakken, thank you both so much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: for more on the jobs numbers online, we have paul solman's own measure of unemployment, which includes the underemployed and those out of work so long the government no longer counts them. that's on our "making sense" page. still to come on the newshour: the coming caucuses in nevada; the threat posed by iran; the course change at a breast cancer charity; plus, shields and brooks. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: the jobs report gave wall street a healthy boost today. the dow jones industrial average gained more than 156 points to close at 12,862, its best finish in nearly four years. the nasdaq rose nearly 46 points to close at 2,905, the highest in 11 years. for the week, the dow gained
6:13 pm
1.5%; the nasdaq rose 3%. the u.s. house could take up legislation next week to bar members of congress and the executive branch from insider stock trading. a similar bill passed the senate last night 96 to 3 in a rare show of bipartisanship. it requires that lawmakers post their stock trades online within 30 days. it was expanded to include thousands of federal employees, and to force disclosure of all home mortgages. cities across egypt erupted in fresh violence today. protesters accused the ruling military of failing to stop a soccer riot that killed 74 people this week. at least five people have died in the ensuing trouble, with more than 1,500 injured. we have a report from john ray of independent television news. >> reporter: egypt's latest agony unfolding in the heart of the capital. here, a rare moment of restraint as cairo's streets became a teeming, seething mass engulfed in great clouds of tear gas. crowds besieging the interior
6:14 pm
ministry, hated symbol of the country's rulers. the wounded rushed away, scores of them, most overcome by the choking gas, many unconscious. they billed this as a day of reckoning with the security forces and the army, which still wields so much power here. but it's another day where very little seems to have changed in egypt's year of revolution. >> the people now are in anger. they are in rage. they are against he minister of the interior. they have to avenge for their friends. >> reporter: in tahrir square, there were tears for the dead of the past week and prayers to their memory. but a cleric's call for calm was quickly forgotten. anger is at boiling point, despite elections and a new parliament. this veteran of the new
6:15 pm
revolution said the killings at the soccer match show it's not over. >> the mood of people right now is anger and frustration towards the violations that are happening against the protesters and against civilians. no one is really getting tried for those actions. >> reporter: and again, it is on the streets that the battle for this country's future is being fought out. >> sreenivasan: in another development, egyptian police said bedouin gunmen released two american women and their egyptian tour guide. they had been kidnapped hours earlier in the sinai peninsula. malaria may be killing twice as many people as experts had believed. that's according to a new study published in the british journal "lancet" and funded by the bill and melinda gates foundation. it used new data and modeling tools. the study found the mosquito- borne disease killed 1.2 million people in 2010, mostly in africa, which is twice the previous estimate. a heavy winter storm socked in colorado and western kansas today before setting its sights farther east. the national weather service reported snow was falling at two
6:16 pm
inches an hour, producing blizzard conditions in some places. two of the main interstates across colorado were closed for safety reasons. officials canceled more than 600 arriving and departing flights at denver international airport, a major airline hub. the cyber hackers known as "anonymous" claimed a new coup today. they announced they had intercepted and recorded a january conference call between washington and london. in it, the fbi and scotland yard discussed efforts to catch the hackers. both police agencies confirmed the claim, but they said none of their systems or operations were compromised. today, the hacking collective claimed responsibility for taking down the boston police department web site. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: and to the political campaign, where the attention has moved west to the state of nevada. mitt romney was aiming today to go two-for-two, adding a win tomorrow in the nevada caucuses to tuesday's victory in florida.
6:17 pm
and he tried to move on from the flap over this comment on wednesday. >> i'm not concerned about the very poor. we have a safety net there. if it needs repair, i'll fix it. >> woodruff: romney initially defended his statement, but late yesterday told nevada political reporter jon ralston that it was a poor choice of words. >> i misspoke. i've said something that is similar to that but quite acceptable for a long time. and you know, when you do i- don't-know-how-many thousands of interviews, now and then, you may get it wrong. and i misspoke. >> woodruff: at a las vegas rally today, romney rival newt gingrich said the explanation no longer mattered-- the damage was done. >> so governor romney, trying to recover from his boo-boo, as the elite media did exactly what obama will do this fall and kept replaying, "i don't really care about the poor," which is, by the way, not a very clever thing for someone who is very wealthy to say. i mean, talk about every possible example of what we don't want in a general election
6:18 pm
candidate. >> woodruff: despite the verbal stumble, romney appeared to be riding a comfortable lead in the silver state. the latest survey from public policy polling had him up 25 points over gingrich. they were followed by texas congressman ron paul at 15% and former pennsylvania senator rick santorum at 8%. paul had three campaign events in nevada today, while santorum spent the day in missouri, which holds its primary on tuesday. we're now joined by the man who conducted that romney interview last night, jon ralston is a political columnist for the las vegas sun. and host of the television program "face-to-face with jon rolston" jon, it is good to see you again. now governor romney told you that he misspoke after first saying that this comment "i'm not concerned about the very poor", it was taken out of context. why do you think the shift in course? >> well, i think that they
6:19 pm
were getting such blowback on this, judy. i mean to say it was taken out of context is a very defensive response. i frankly expected him to say something like that and try to pivot off of that. so i was surprised when he said that, clearly what occurred is that they knew this was playing into a narrative of a guy who is out of touch, that is very narrative that the republicans have created in this primary process, that the democrats are looking to exploit. and i'm sure someone inside his campaign or romney himself said listen, we have to get rid of this as quickly as possible. we have to a that i misspoke, i misstatesed what i really meant. he has said similar kinds of things on the campaign trail but not as inartfully as this was, judy. >> woodruff: now despite this he does appear as we reported to be doing well in the polls. is that what you are hearing on the ground? >> romney has been running for president here and elsewhere for many years. he's got the real organization here. he's got the folks on the ground. he's spending money on television and at the grass
6:20 pm
roots level. there is the much ballyhooed mormon factor here, even though the lds folks are only 7% of the population they do vote disproportionately in the republican caucus, 25%, 20%, various estimates in 2008. so i think he has to be considered the solid favorite here. he has really worked nevada. and so i think it's going to pay off for him on saturday. >> woodruff: jon, there has been so much reporting about the economy of nevada, the high unemployment rate, the high rate of home foreclosures. how much are those factors in the minds of republican voters there? >> i think they're a factor in the minds of all voters here, judy. i mean 80% of the people in las vegas by some estimates are underwater on their homes, either have or will go through some kind of painful process with the bank. they are looking for help this is why the democrats still have hope, i think that they can take this state and other states, although we are the worse in terms of being its epicentre
6:21 pm
of the foreclosure. we still have the highest unemployment rate in the country this state is really hurting, so you see the president come out this week with his mortgage refinance program. and the democrats are going to contrast that. and i think this will appeal to some republicans and independents too. with the republican candidates, all of them coming here and essentially not offering as much, mitt romney having come here on a previous visit and have said to the newspaper editorial board here that the foreclosure process should just continue until it ends. which of course again, i know what he was trying to say. and he may be right but a lot of people here i think were offended by that. and that's already gone viral on u tooub. >> woodruff: so are you saying had that is-- going to hurt him and others in this vote tomorrow. >> i don't know if it is going to hurt romney as much in the caucuse-- caucus tomorrow, although i'm certain there are some republicans in this state who are underwater on this home just as there are many democrats and independents. but there are general election issues that have
6:22 pm
been created for mitt romney in this republican caucus, in this republican primary process that are going to hurt him. >> woodruff: jon, what about newt gingrich, rick santorum, ron paul. what do you see of the effort they are making there in nevada? >> santorum has only made a token appearance here. he's actually going to have a rally with sharon andel this evening. she ran against harry reid and helped much to the republicans disclosure, harry reid get re-elected but she's still popular with a certain tea party contingent here. she's going to try to boost santorum. it's not going to help him much. he has little chance here. he knows t he has only made token appearance. newt gingrich has been here for three or four days and has been campaigning. i interviewed him for my program tonight. he seems to think that he is going to survive. he keeps saying the same thing, he's in this for the long haul but he has no organization whatsoever in the state so whatever percentage he gets, and he's second in the polls, judy, is going to be just for the enthusiasm for the anyone
6:23 pm
but romney contingent. ron paul i think is the real x factor here though judy. he came in second in 2008. a distant second to romney it was 51% to 14%. but his folks are more organized this time. and i think he may not be showing up in the polls the way that he should. he's been third and fourth in a couple of polls that have been taken. i think he's got hidden strength. and i know this is a cliche, judy, but turnout is really going to be important. if the turnout is very low, the two best organized campaigns are going to do well and that is romney and then second obviously is ron paul. so i think that's the real x factor for tomorrow f there is any suspense is how well can paul's folks really do. >> so tell us what is the appeal of ron paul to these voters you are describing? >> some of it is the general appeal that's going on across the country. a lot of young folks really just idolize the guy. because of his contrarian nature. but nevada is also a very libertarian state. it really is. and paul is a libertarian.
6:24 pm
yeah, he is in the republican party but he is a libertarian. and he has had that appeal here. and his folks have been organizing here for as long as romneys have. they took over the state party in 2008. and they still have a lot of influence here. their numbers are swelling. paul had about 1,000 people at a rally at a local casino here the other night. the question is can that kind of energy and enthusiasm do what it did not do for him four years ago, do this time which is translate into actual caucus participation. you never knows what's going to happen in a caucus, too, remember, it's different than a primary. people aren't in there just pushing a button for somebody, judy. they are supposed to have conversations and try to talk up their candidate. no one wants to talk up their candidate more than ron paul's supporters. >> woodruff: jon rolston, the man who knows nevada politics. thank you very much. good to see you. >> thanks, judy. you too >> brown: our colleagues from the pbs program "need to know" are also reporting from nevada. tonight's edition focuses on job training programs and efforts to
6:25 pm
stem the foreclosure crisis there. >> woodruff: now, more talk of an israeli strike on iran to stop or slow down that country's nuclear program, and questions about a u.s. response to any israeli military action. ray suarez has the story. >> suarez: with war talk rising, the supreme leader of iran rallied his public today in friday prayers broadcast on state television. ayatollah ali khamenei warned against any military strike against iran's nuclear sites. >> ( translated ): the u.s. military threats against us are to their detriment, and a real war will harm them ten times more. the more they threaten us, the more harmful it will be for them. they should know, and of course they know that, in return for such war threats and oil embargo
6:26 pm
threats, we have our own threats to make in proper time, if deemed necessary. >> suarez: khamenei also took on israel again, calling it a "cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut." >> ( translated ): we will continue to support every nation, every group that is confronting and fighting the zionist regime. we will support and help them. >> suarez: the rhetoric took on new import, after months of growing tensions over tehran's nuclear program. the islamic republic has repeatedly denied its goal is to build nuclear weapons, as israel and the u.s. claim. yesterday, israeli defense minister ehud barak issued his strongest warning yet that time is running out. at a security conference in israel, he said: "dealing with a nuclear iran will be more complicated, more dangerous, and more costly in lives and money than stopping it. whoever says "later" may find
6:27 pm
that "later" is too late." and israel's vice premier moshe ya'alon underscored his government's view that even iran's underground nuclear sites are vulnerable. >> ( translated ): there was a debate in the united states about whether bombs can or cannot penetrate an iranian underground installation. from my own military experience, any facility that is guarded by a human being can be targeted. >> suarez: at almost the same time, a "washington post" column by david ignatius raised eyebrows. ignatius wrote that u.s. defense secretary leon panetta: "believes there is a strong likelihood that israel will strike iran in april, may or june, before iran enters what israelis described as a zone of immunity to commence building a nuclear bomb." in brussels yesterday, at a nato meeting, panetta declined to dispute the report. instead, he said, "no, i'm just not commenting." today, in germany, panetta said the key is to maintain tough economic sanctions on iran.
6:28 pm
but he said all options are on the table, and the u.s. is "prepared to respond if we have to." either way, the iranian supreme leader, ayatollah khamenei, insisted iran remains defiant. >> ( translated ): these sanctions are to put pressure on iran to withdraw from the nuclear issue and other issues. but what would happen if we do not withdraw? these sanctions are to force iran to back down, and iran will not give up. >> suarez: as if to underscore that point, iran took a new step in its space program with the launch of a new satellite this morning. that same missile technology can be used to fire warheads. >> brown: next, after an uproar, the susan g. komen foundation reverses course on its decision i'm joined now by david ignatius of the "washington post" who is with the defense secretary in munich, germany. and former executive editor of the injuries lem post now at the washington institute for near east policy, david ignatius, let me start with you. you have written of the zone of immunity that iran is supposedly entering which is pushing the time line what is that? what does that mean? >> israeli officials have described it to u.s. officials, the zone of immunity is the moment at which iran has accumulated
6:29 pm
enough enriched uranium that it is able to proceed to build to nuclear weapon from that point on. in other words, if you don't strike before they enter that zone of immunity, they will be able to construct the bomb and you won't be able to stop it. this is a concern in part because a very deep iranian bunkered facility near-- that israeli weapons probably could not reach. u.s. weapons might be able to reach them which is why the u.s. time line is somewhat different. the u.s. could wait longer before attacking until it saw evidence that the iranians were actually making a bomb, that is to say after they entered the zone. the israelis think that they can't wait and they don't want to depend on the u.s.. >> suarez: david, zone of immunity or not, given the way the iranian system is scattered, well protected, would a military strike be
6:30 pm
effective at halting it? >> well, i think they believe in israel that it would be. i was just there last month. and there's an active debate at the top among the cabinet people and the top security people. they're pretty convinced they could attack. but david ignatius got it exactly right. ehud barak gave an interview in november, didn't get a lot of play where he said basically you have got six to nine months until, that they enter the zone of immunity, meaning that they have such well for the fin find-- fortified sites underground that there is a certain point where you just can't attack. so this is kind of a year of decision for them in israel. it's a kind of now or never kind of element. it is not something they were yearning to do. they would hope the sanctioned worked but they would have to make a decision among sub optimal conditions. they don't have america's military capability and their window closes quicker than the united states. >> suarez: you mentioned the sarntions working, david ignatius, is that a big
6:31 pm
campbell-- gamble for israel, not waiting to see if the factions which by widespread reporting are cutting deep in iran, do have time to work. >> the united states government believes that it is a mistake for israel to consider launching or launch such an attack. they believe that the sanctions are working, that there is an international coalition that has been assembled that is increasingly agressive in trying to stop this iranian program. they worry that a uni lateral israeli strike would below that coalition apart. so they think it is a bad idea, i want to be very clear about that. also i should make clear that u.s. officials don't believe that prime minister netanyahu has yet made the decision to strike. they just think that there is a strong likelihood that he will make that decision. >> suarez: david? >> i agree. i think there are two people kind of leading thette. defense minister barak, a quarter step behind him is prime minister netanyahu. and these are two people without would prefer a,
6:32 pm
their first preference is sanctions work. this works out peacefully, everybody is happiest. their second preference would be that israel could back off and that the united states that has greater capability and a longer time line to deal with it. but because they're not sure of what the u.s. would do if sanctions don't prove to be decisive, they're left with this third choice. which is that they might have to strike earlier because of their closing window. but you know, what i have learned, if you look at the history where there are two other incidents where israel is hit, has hit nuclear sites, one of iraq, one of syria, in each case there were divisions. and at the time when israel hit the reactor of saddal hussein, the head of the moussad was against t the head of military intelligence was against it. but a determined prime minister brought his cabinet along. david ignatius got it exactly right. they haven't made a decision yet. but i think that barak and netanyahu would prefer that
6:33 pm
somehow this is somehow taken care of oez. but they are fearful they will be left holding the bag because, unless they have greater understandings wi the united states. when leon panetta says this say red line for america if iran does such and such on their nuclear program, i think there is a greater understanding what that red line was and what the consequences of an american response would be, i think the united states could reshape that debate in israel even though it is a delayed phase and the is raem was back off. so i don't think we should speak about it as inevitability. i think it is just rather a strong possibility. >> suarez: david ignatius, greater understands between israel and the united states, is there also a risk given also that the united states by your reporting is discouraging israel at this point, that any unilateral action by the israeli was drive a wedge in that clos closebylateral alliance. >> yes, i think that is one of the dangers that the israelis need to consider. this administration as i understand it has made clear to israel that we don't
6:34 pm
think this is wise that we don't think it's in our interest or israelis and that we think the unintended, unanticipated consequences could be very damaging across the region. and so i think israeli does need to consider whether it its crucial strategic relationship with the united states would be seriously negatively affected if it went ahead and did something despite these strong arguments against it from the united states. again, israel feels this israeli government but i think every israeli government feels that in the end it alone has to make decisions about how it's going to be secured. can't depend on anybody else i think that is part of what the pressure of israel against its key ally but this sense that in the end we have-- israelis have to be masters of their own fate. >> suarez: before we close i would like to hear from both of you about the cost benefit analysis being made on both sides. if you only slow down and
6:35 pm
don't stop the iranian program, but unleash military strikes, could the possibility for iranian retaliation, for destabilization in the region son severe thats blowback is worse than what you accomplish with the attack. >> look, i think that is where there are division inside israel because there are concerns about regional consequences. i don't think they believe there is going it to be a full blown middle east war as a result of this. the worst they see it would be that they have to deal with some retaliation from iran and there would be a hezbollah northern border situation. they have to weigh the risks of action versus the risks of inaction. they see the risk of inaction meaning are you going to have a nuclear arms race in the middle east with egypt, saudi arabia, turkey, all wanting to counter the iranian bomb, will you see a proliferation to nonstate acters like hezbollah, maybe dirty bomb technology, that you will be emboldening rejectionists, intimidating moderates. so they see this as a profound change in the
6:36 pm
balance of power. on the other hand, as you point out there is risk of action. i would generally disagree with david ignatius, respectfully, is that i don't think it is as much like a design ethos of self-reliance. i think if there was a way to synchronize the clock i think israeli would certainly be welcome to it. they are aware of the risks but their view is once iran crosses the finish line it will be too late for anyone to do any more things like it and more like north consideria. >> suarez: quick response. >> i think what bothers u.s. officials what bothers me as an analyst and columnist is that this is a role of the dice. and the israelis believe that the iranian response would probably be limited that their own casualties would be limited. that the affect on the global economy would not be severe. that this would pass as their strike on iraq passed, as their strike in 2007 on syria, syrian nuclear reactor passed. but it's impossible to know. and a roll of the dice with
6:37 pm
the consequences this high for everyone concerned, bothers me. that's a risky way to make state craft. >> suarez: david ignatiu ignatius-- gentlemen, thank you both is >> brown: next, after an uproar, the susan g. komen foundation reverses course on its decision to cut funding to planned parenthood. hari sreenivasan has our update. >> sreenivasan: the about-face came after two days of anger from many women and supporters, and after the breast cancer charity offered two different explanations for its decision. first, komen leaders said they would cut grants to planned parenthood because of a new policy barring money to organizations being investigated by the government. then yesterday, komen officials cited concerns over how planned parenthood provided mammograms and others follow-up services. this morning, komen's founder, nancy brinker, apologized in a
6:38 pm
statement saying: "we have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons, or to specifically penalize planned parenthood. they were nonot." for more on what happened, we thanks for being with us. >> thank you for having me. >> so help put this in perspective a bit more. what did we learn today? >> well, today we learned that susan g komen for the cure had reversed its decision to prevent any funding going to organizations that have been under any kind of investigation whatsoever. they now say that they will allow funding to go to planned parenthood an other organizations so long as any sort of investigation is not conclusive and criminal. so this basically opens the door again for any of the affiliates around the united states to continue to receive funding from their
6:39 pm
local komen organization. >> reporter: how he is ver were the past three days for the susan komen foundation? >> you know, i mean, i don't think it was something that they really expected. and i don't think it's something that planned parenthood expected either. komen received support from both sides. there were many people praising the decision. and there were many people condemning it. planned parenthood for their part didn't expect to receive the kind of support they received on social media, twitter, facebook, and you know, as you know, the richards of planned parenthood federation of america put it, it really caught fire. >> how powerful was that social media element of it? >> they say that it was pretty powerful. i mean basically when you have something like facebook providing a space for people to tell their own stories, to really lay out why this is important to them, that is something that can be a very, very powerful tool. and he is seal richards herself says she believes it
6:40 pm
wouldn't have caught quite as much attention from the mainstream media had it not been for this big social media push so they give it a lot of credit. >> reporter: at the moment planned parenthood almost came out ahead in this entire event, right? >> yeah, seems like they've done pretty well for themselves. in the last few days, they have raised somewhere around $3 million. some of it from big donors like michael bloomberg and others from smaller donors. and that's been to an emergency fund that has been set up since komen said that it would be or since the announcement came out that komen would be halting funding to planned parenthood which is obviously since reversed. but clearly yeah, they have come out quite a bit ahead it that said komen is also received funds as well, probably from people who supported that initial decision. so it will be interesting to see you know, how high their profiles are raised by this. one of the things that he is
6:41 pm
seal richards mentioned in our-- in the press conference this morning was that she got a call from lance armstrong's foundation, live strong, and that is someone that they have never been able to work with before. so they are receiving opportunities from places that they had not expected before. >> reporter: so how strained is the relationship between these two organizations in part of that conference call she said she heard this turn about, like everybody else did. there wasn't a suppose phone call, there weren't letters back and forth. >> i don't know how strained the relationship is. yes, she did indeed hear the same way that everyone else did. through release on the internet. and she said at that point in time that she had put a call in but had not heard back yet. that said, i mean the overall tone is they just want to put this behind them that they are sort of very relieved and happy to move on. and they just want to go back to their goal of you know serving women so right now the tone is very much about building bonds and reforming that amount of and
6:42 pm
moving on. i think they attribute that to the very good relationships that they have on the ground with the local affiliates. >> reporter: okay, thank you so much for your time. >> thank you >> woodruff: finally tonight, the analysis of shields and brooks-- syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. >> woodruff: so jobs numbers, mark, unemployment rate is down. the best numbers, i guess they've seen since this president took office. >> what does it all mean for the presidential campaign? >> it's encourage. it's good news. it's upbeat for the country, first of all. but certainly for ot bama administration. i think that you have seen this sort of increasing better-than-expected jobs numbers now the second month in a row. and i think it's reflected in the president's support. you can see his own numbers
6:43 pm
improving. >> woodruff: what dow say? >> people feel better about the country. there was a sense, i think a couple months ago things were spiraling down. and that sense has not totally gone away but feel bet we are about the country, feel better about the way things are going. one of the good pieces of news, it is not because there some massive stimulus to pump things up it is the business cycle. so the business cycle is ticking upwards. all the economists say that doesn't mean it is going to continue. the cbo came out this week, congressional budget office with a projection that next year or the rest of the year is going to be down. and then looming out there always is europe when you talk to people who are following the european situation full-time a lot of anxiety there. so we have had a false dawn before this could be another one. on the other hand, this could be the slow gradual climb out of what we have been through through. >> woodruff: how much does it matter, mark, how the republican nominee condition datas still handle this i mean today they were pretty much universally saying well, the president should be doing better. should have done more. >> they were. you almost wanted to say
6:44 pm
cheer up, eventually things will get worse. i mean they were really sort of discouraged or up set that it was good news. i mean there is still, judy, 5.6 million fewer jobs today than there were when the great recession began in december of 2007. so we've got a long way to go. but this is good news. it's encouraging and it means that the republicans have to come up with something other than where the other guy, i mean they have to come up with some vision. and whatever mitt romney's strengths have been, vision has not been one of them up until now. >> i completely want to underscore there first on the policy sense it lessens the need probably for a little more stimulus it increases the need for long-term unemployment policy. because that issue is still very strong. >> woodruff: which is something that congress is dealing with right now. >> so we still have this huge number of long-term unemployed. but the idea that mitt romney assuming he is the nominee, can coast to the presidency on bad economy while just uttering bannalities about how much he loves america, that's probably not going happen now. if the economy continues to
6:45 pm
tick up, he can't just ride the economy. it is much more physical soph call, substantive about how he differs from the president. >> woodruff: so how much of this is the president just simply at the mercy, david, of numbers that come out the first week of every month and how much is how he talks about it? >> we cover campaigns and they all say i created this job. i created that job. the extent to which a president is responsible for the economy under his watch, we should-- it will help him politically but it's completely boggus. presidents do not control the economy under their watch. they can have a marginal impact but it has to do with a lot more complicated things then they are responsible for. that is true with obama, probably true with herbert hoover. presidents do not correlate in the short term with economic quarterly by quarterly performance. >> woodruff: so he just has to wake up the first friday of every month and hope that -- >> i think the think the president did take
6:46 pm
controversial steps dramatic, and i think can make the case that he, what he did is working. there were major policy changes at the outset of his administration. right now there are very few arrows left in his quiver of what can do. so in that sense, and i think just to underscore what david said about europe and what we had in the previous discussion with ray. i mean iran is the wild card. i mean if we're talking about the strait of hormuz being closed or something of that sort, that say game changer politically. >> woodruff: well, let's keep it here at home a few more minutes, david. and that is the mitt romney comment this week. where he said i'm not concerned about the very poor. and he went on to talk about the-- first he said this is taken out of context and then yesterday, as he heard from jon rolston, he said i misspoke. what do we-- know more about mitt romney from this episode. >> well, first that he is
6:47 pm
following the strategy that every candidate since maybe bill clinton or maybe before with the exception of george w. bush has followed which is just pay attention to the middle class. and they all focus on the middle class. as a result with the potential of george w. bush we had no national candidate talk about poverty for a long, long time, maybe decades. >> woodruff: including the president. >> including the current president. and the second thing we learned is i understand what he is trying to say. but to have the words i do not care about the poor come out of your mouth, say that you are responding to reality in abstract dehumanized way the way a consultant would, not as a human being would, people who are in touch, who were-- those word was not come out of your mouth. to that extent i do think it touches a genuine problem for romney which is he sometimes sees things in a much more distance, emotionally distanced way. and as a result people think i'm not sure he gets what i am going through. >> woodruff: does this connect, mark, to the other comments that have been eye
6:48 pm
lighted, the $10,000 bet. >> i'm unemploy toad. >> right, and i'm just afraid of a pink slip. it does, judy. what you have to be worried about is that a perception, a negative perception can start to set in that becomes a caricature. take the case, for example, of president gerald ford. perhaps the best athlete ever to sit in the white house, university of michigan football player, drafted by the nfl but he slipped coming down the stairs and he drove a golf ball into a crowd and all of a sudden he was a klutz and chevy chase had a career. and that became the perception. mitt romney is now coming across as a guy who was born in a log cabin in grosse pointe, michigan w silver ear plugs, i mean he doesn't hear. i mean it really is setting in. and i think republicans, you talk to, are getting nervous that perhaps this guy just doesn't have the touch. i mean it's not a silver spoon, it's silver ear plugs. i mean he really is tone
6:49 pm
deaf. >> woodruff: but he's now saying i misspoke. can he put this behind him and -- >> well, i mean, to be blunt about t whatever else he says about the safety net, very little of his campaign has been devoted to extending, repairing and strengthening the safety net. i mean that has not been a priority of the republican platform or of mitt romney's agenda. i mean so that was kind of a silly statement to make in passing, even as he tried to-- i mean the middle class has become the holy grail of american politics. i mean whatever you do for the middle class of these you do for me. i think scripture is going to be rewritten. i mean it's really, you know, it becomes shameless on the part of democrats and republicans. and that's what he was trying to do, ineptly though de it. >> woodruff: do you think we will hear more focus on the poor, very poor. >> can have a policy. maybe this would be a good antidote, i don't expect him to do this but to say okay, here is my poverty agenda. we believe in equal
6:50 pm
opportunity but providing equal opportunity, the government just can't hang back when you have all these disorganized neighbors hoods, you have to do some stuff, i will help charities, hi am going to do this. so it would-be hoove him to have a policy agenda toward poverty. >> we have a greater number and percentage of people very poor today than we have had in a generation. there are 20 million americans living in households less than one half of the poverty rate established by government. so that would be an income for family of four of about $11,000 a year, so it is a real problem. >> woodruff: final thing, two developments this week around social, sensitive social issues. one was the susan komen foundation changing course on money for planned parenthood. and the other one had to do with something that came out of the health agency this week. but let me ask you about the second, first. kathleen sebelius, secretary of health for ot bama administration announced that social service providers have to include
6:51 pm
contraceptives in their health coverage. whatever a group's religious or ethical views are. mark, what is the fallout from this? >> the fallout is cataclysmic for the white house and for the president. >> woodruff: really? >> yes, cataclysmic. i'm talking about, and i say this as a catholic. i'm not talking about catholics who attend mass every sunday. catholics who attend mass here regularly take great pride in the social mission of catholic church to feed the hungry to provide shelter for those who are homeless, to take care of those who are lonely and the immigrant. and there is a great sense of pride that this is the mission of catholic church. it's part of the definition of catholic church. and what president obama has done with there policy, and secretary he is belluous quite bluntly, is they have taken those catholics who took a risk to support them, father john jenkins, and
6:52 pm
sister carol king who is the catholic health association, who have taken on orthodox more conservative groups within their own catholic church to support the president, especially as evidenced on the poor and they have left them out to dry. i mean he really has, with in just a policy that i think is, quite frankly, indefensible. >> woodruff: what are the implications. >> i think is enormous. i think was the most underreported story of many months. because you have catholics who are up set. you have evangelicals who are really up set and whatever problem they had with mitt romney that has now healed, now united with mitt romney because they are so up set about this story. and a lot of people think we are a diverse country with a lot of different values. the government should get involved, to give money to a lot of these associations but it should give different people with different values the ability to operate in the way they see fit. when you have the government saying one size fits all, sort of a form of bureaucratic greed, are you going to do it our way or
6:53 pm
not, that insults a lot of people. so i think this is having resonance across the country. it was statements were issued on a lot of masses. a lot of pulpits this past sunday. and you know, i think it's going to have a significant lingering affect for a long time. >> woodruff: why did the administration do it? >> i honestly don't know. i think there was a tone deafness. i think maybe the mitt romney thing is contagious. i mean there just really was-- you know this was after the president and private conversations and public speeches at commencement addresses had said we're going to work out a compromise. we'll work this out. we'll have a solution that respects the conscience. the conscience clause is deep in our tradition. quakers at time of war. it's seventh day adventists not being forced o work on the sabath, it's orthodox jews being given kosher food. you know, it just really to me, i don't know. you can make a political calculation but i honestly don't know why they did it. >> woodruff: do you have a sense of why? >> no, it is a great
6:54 pm
mystery. i hear conspiracy theories. who switched the president's mind. who would have the power to change his mind after he had made these vows. i don't know. i really think they should come out and address it a little more because it's to the getting some of the front page cover that i-- coverage that i think it deserves but it's out there. >> woodruff: but you are hearing that they may reverse. >> no, no, i don't mean to say that. i mean to say that there is a lot of popular upset about this and within the administration, by the way there is some up set about it. >> judy, i mean, places like scranton, pennsylvania, cincinnati, ohio, the i-4 corridor, catholics in those-- i mean barack obama carried catholics with 54% in 2008. just saying that this appears to be distancing if not dissing catholics. >> woodruff: we hear you both, mark shields, david brooks, thank you. >> brown: again, the major developments of the day: the job market in the united
6:55 pm
states surged last month, as unemployment hit its lowest level in three years. and the nation's leading breast cancer group, the susan g. komen foundation, reinstated funding for planned parenthood after a firestorm of criticism. reported a hundred people died when government forces shelled the city. there's more from shields and brooks online. hari sreenivasan explains. hari. >> sreenivasan: mark and david talk sports and politics on "the doubleheader" this super bowl weekend. find that on the "rundown" blog later this evening. and on "art beat," jeff talked with choreographer mark morris about a performance of his masterpiece, "l'allegro." also there, find a conversation with zach condon of the band beirut about their most recent album, "the rip tide." all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. judy. >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. on monday, we'll talk with the speaker of the house of representatives, john boehner. i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online, and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend.
6:56 pm
thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm

371 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on